Org Mobile Site
Thread: Royal Navy, Royal Airforce.....
So why (in the UK) don't we have a 'Royal' army? Is it because the modern British Army was founded by Cromwell in the Civil War?
I know there are 'Royal' regiments etc but the Army itself is never referred to as Royal. Or is it differently described overseas?
I know there are 'Royal' regiments etc but the Army itself is never referred to as Royal. Or is it differently described overseas?
The British Army was formed by Royal Proclamation in 1661, but a few regiments are older than that.
It is not called "Royal" because it is simply an association of regiments
It is not called "Royal" because it is simply an association of regiments
I suggest it is not called 'Royal' because Parliament would never have accepted such a name at the time of the Restoration of the monarchy. However, from being the best army of its era it became a third-rate force almost overnight. The monarchy wanted the Parliamentarian army to be dismembered because it was a hotbed of radical ideas about equality and representative government, and even proto-socialism. A few regiments only were kept with commissions once again reverting to those who could afford them, none of this dangerous meritocratic leadership nonsense.
A 'Royal' Army would have made Parliament very jumpy.
A 'Royal' Army would have made Parliament very jumpy.
especially after the end of the civil war, cromwell walking around with his 'royal' army...
that would definately sound very fishy
that would definately sound very fishy
It is as Malcolm said only a collection of regiment's, but a few as you know carry the title Royal.
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm:
The British Army was formed by Royal Proclamation in 1661, but a few regiments are older than that.
It is not called "Royal" because it is simply an association of regiments
But could not the Royal Navy be described as only an association of ships?The British Army was formed by Royal Proclamation in 1661, but a few regiments are older than that.
It is not called "Royal" because it is simply an association of regiments
But it's His/Her Majesty's Ship.
Originally Posted by King Henry V:
But could not the Royal Navy be described as only an association of ships?
No. The Royal Navy started as the Navies of the Kings of England and Scotland -- funded by them or erstwhile on their behalf. The Navies became one in 1603 or 1707 (not sure, but the Scottish Navy was only a couple of ships at the time after financial hardships). They have always been the Navy of the King, the Navy Royal.But could not the Royal Navy be described as only an association of ships?
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO